FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 47436/07
Todor Ivanov SLAVKOV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1 July 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 September 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 3 April 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Todor Ivanov Slavkov, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Sofia. He was represented before the Court by Ms I. Lulcheva and Ms I. Vasileva, lawyers practising in Sofia.
The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the excessive amount of court fees that he had been ordered to pay in the proceedings for damages against the State. The application was communicated to the Government.
In 2003 the applicant brought an action against the Prosecutor’s Office and the Sofia District Court under the State Responsibility for Damage Act, claiming 600,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) in non-pecuniary damage stemming from his unlawful detention and from criminal proceedings in which he was acquitted.
In a judgment of 13 July 2004 the Sofia City Court awarded the applicant BGN 20,000 in non-pecuniary damage plus interest.
On appeal, in a judgment of 16 August 2005 the Sofia Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment but ordered a different starting date for the calculation of the interest due on the awarded amount.
In a final judgment of 28 March 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation increased the award to the applicant to BGN 30,000 plus interest.
The courts further applied section 10 § 2 of the State Responsibility for Damage Act and ordered the applicant to pay BGN 22,800 in court fees.
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 3 April 2014 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“[...] The Government hereby wish to express [...] its acknowledgment of the excessive amount of court fees that the applicant had been ordered to pay in the proceedings for damages against the State under the SMRDA which restricted his right to access to a court, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government of Bulgaria are prepared to pay to Todor Ivanov Slavkov, the amount of EUR 2,500 which they consider reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law. The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses will be converted into Bulgarian levs at the exchange rate applicable at the time of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be chargeable to the applicant. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the [Convention]. [...]
The Government, therefore, request that this application be struck out of the Court’s list of cases pursuant to Article 37, para. 1(c) of the Convention. [...]”
By a letter of 8 May 2014, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. He considered that the amount offered in compensation was insufficient in view of the fact that he still owed a significant amount to the State in court fees and requested the Court to pursue the examination of his case.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
The Court has found violations of Article 6 § 1 by reason of the excessive court fees in proceedings for damages against the State in a number of cases against Bulgaria (see Stankov v. Bulgaria, no. 68490/01, 12 July 2007; Mihalkov v. Bulgaria, no. 67719/01, 10 April 2008; Tzvyatkov v. Bulgaria, no. 20594/02, 12 June 2008; and Nikolay Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 30544/06, 8 January 2013).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the complaint of excessive court fees in proceedings for damages against the State, and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy